"Yes they control both houses and so what? So your back to assuming that they would do that. You are completely disreguarding the fact that it is in nobodies best interest to do that. Democrats would lose all their gained power by 2010 if they decided to abuse their power." - Ironmaiden

Why would the democrats, who are generally left of center, choose to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court justice who is conservative? That doesn't make any sense. Would you expect the republicans to pick a liberal justice under the same circumstances?

"Again completly ignoring the fact that he it setting up a administration full of people from the major parties. So yes I truely believe he will be left but moderate." - Ironmaiden

I think it's a good sign, but I lack your confidence. Choosing moderate and conservative advisors is one thing. Actually listening to them is something else. Likewise, Obama may turn out to be moderate on some issues (the economy for example), and still remain very liberal on others (gun control, abortion, etc.).

"Explain to me how the supreme court could possibly interpret the second amendment as saying that no person can own a gun? 2nd Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Ironmaiden

The argument hinges on the Militia reference. As absurd as it might sound the liberal justices argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but rather the right of the states to maintain state militias.

My major point was that some gun regulations don't necessarily lead to a slippery slope that ends in total prohibition. But outside of that I'm clearly not educated enough on the issue (and not invested enough, either) to continue commenting, so I'm going to be a spectator from here on out.

The Supreme court does interpret the constitution but they *CAN'T* change it. Repealing an amendment requires a 2 thirds majority AND 3 quarters of all states. Besides that the 2nd amendment is in the Bill of rights. There is no legal precedence for changing anything in the bill of rights. I would dare say it would be considered taboo.

*IF* a new gun law was created, you would have 4 justices who would not find it unconstitutional. There are 4 liberals. There are 4 conservatives (thanks to Bush) and just 1 moderate (also thanks to Bush). The law would be struck down as unconstitutional.
(1 moderate and 1 conservative were replaced by 2 conservatives.)

There are 2 justices who are old, they are both liberal. They will be replaced by other liberals. change=0.

Next point, there are not enough votes to pass said law let alone break a philibuster.

another point, There are too many other things to be done right with the economy and 2 wars going on. Healthcare, the national debt, SS and medicare.......

Yet another point. These people want to get elected again.

This kind of goes along with that last one, but the DNC wants to keep Democrats in power and expand their lead. They know they must behave in order to do that. They will have their people on a short leash.

The NRA has a lobby and money. So do gun manufactures. Parks rely on hunting revenue. Hunting eliminates need to control overpopulation of animals.

"The Supreme court does interpret the constitution but they *CAN'T* change it. Repealing an amendment requires a 2 thirds majority AND 3 quarters of all states. Besides that the 2nd amendment is in the Bill of rights. There is no legal precedence for changing anything in the bill of rights. I would dare say it would be considered taboo." - Ironman

No, the Supreme Court can't repeal an amendment, but it can overturn a previous Supreme Court ruling. If the Supreme Court rules that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, as some argue, then there would be no need to repeal the Second Amendment.